MSNBC-Melissa Harris-Perry says "kids belong to whole communities"

[jackstar7]

Do tell. Exactly what needs explaining?

Well, to paraphrase, I think it's from you saying that no conclusion needs to be drawn, because the conclusion is obvious.

There is no conclusion... except the conclusion.


Just a hunch on my part.

 

[xBiffx]

Well, to paraphrase, I think it's from you saying that no conclusion needs to be drawn, because the conclusion is obvious.

There is no conclusion... except the conclusion.


Just a hunch on my part.

When you look at a chart that shows two data points does it really need to be said which one is higher?

Furthermore, when you look at the same chart that says single-parent is higher than two-parent do you really need to say single-parent is higher?

 

[jackstar7]

When you look at a chart that shows two data points does it really need to be said which one is higher?

Regardless of the chart, it's the words you used.

There's no conclusion except the conclusion.

 

[xBiffx]

Regardless of the chart, it's the words you used.

There's no conclusion except the conclusion.

I didn't conclude anything. I READ the fricken chart (i.e. the numbers).

 

[ivwshane]

Personally, I appreciate a little latitude in the area of tangent discussions. Perhaps you should spend more time in DC where such things matter.

Sounds like your MO, when challenged change the subject, or leave.

Now I see why you couldn't make it in DC and left

 

[ivwshane]

Well FWIW I read your post of her clarification. Makes much more sense and I haven't a problem with it.

Fair enough, thanks for the honesty.

 

[ivwshane]

No surprise here that most of the people posting in this thread are on my ignore list. She never said state, she said community as in we should all care about all the children. When did it become a disgusting trait to possess empathy?

As soon as someone on the left said it.

We have 10 pages of people stating what they thinks she's said and when what she said is clarified by herself, suddenly they don't have much to say. Not surprising nor is it surprising that the subject has been changed.

I guess silence is their way of accepting the truth.

 

[jackstar7]

I didn't conclude anything. I READ the fricken chart (i.e. the numbers).

Sorry then, I can't help you.

 

[xBiffx]

Sorry then, I can't help you.

None needed. Thanks for thinking of me.

 

[michal1980]

Wow. I post her response, I quoted it and I linked to her blog and maybe one person read it.
Typical righty mentality when proven wrong change the subject. Sorry Charles you fell for it hookline and sinker.

I read her response.

If she isn't trying to make a point, or pedal for money, then why is she making an add?


Like I said before.

here reponse was

"I'm not sayin, I'm just sayin"

IE I don't want your kids, but I want the 'community' to be responsible for them. Of course community always means government in the liberal mind, since more government is the solution to every problem they see.

 

[jackstar7]

None needed. Thanks for thinking of me.

You asked what needed explaining, and I explained it.

Best of luck in your future endeavors.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

How does Andrew Sullivan know what she meant? How did he extract so much detail from so little information?

Being a hell of a lot smarter, and a hell of lot less biased, than most of the reactionaries in this thread.

 

[michal1980]

Being a hell of a lot smarter, and a hell of lot less biased, than most of the reactionaries in this thread.

people somehow are always smarter in the liberals mind if they agree with them. And dumber is they don't.

I think the following is a liberal flow chart:

Agree with me?

a)yes - Smart
b)no - stupid.

 

[fskimospy]

Being a hell of a lot smarter, and a hell of lot less biased, than most of the reactionaries in this thread.

It is also frankly baffling to see people on this board calling a flat tax supporting, welfare state opponent, free market healthcare supporting, Iraq war supporting, Ron Paul endorsing guy a liberal because he supports marriage equality and chose Obama over two of the worst presidential tickets I've ever seen.

 

[jackstar7]

people somehow are always smarter in the liberals mind if they agree with them. And dumber is they don't.

I think the following is a liberal flow chart:

Agree with me?

a)yes - Smart
b)no - stupid.

I tend to go by how someone is able to communicate their thoughts. Good spelling and typing are nice, but a clear use of appropriate language to express a given point really demonstrates whether someone is smart or not, especially when talking about either the media or those participating in a message board.

 

[ivwshane]

I read her response.

If she isn't trying to make a point, or pedal for money, then why is she making an add?


Like I said before.

here reponse was

"I'm not sayin, I'm just sayin"

IE I don't want your kids, but I want the 'community' to be responsible for them. Of course community always means government in the liberal mind, since more government is the solution to every problem they see.

It must be hard work being stupid because you seem to be putting a lot of effort into it. All she is advocating for is for people to understand children affect us all and therefore we should all have an interest in what happens with children whether they are ours or someone else's or whether or not we have kids ourselves or not.

 

[Incorruptible]

I understand that she clarified her comments but what she originally said was just downright wrong. Children belong to their parents and not this idiotic idea that they belong to the state which idiots like her actually believe.

She is a pathetic excuse for a human being and piece of shit for what she did.

 

[ivwshane]

I understand that she clarified her comments but what she originally said was just downright wrong. Children belong to their parents and not this idiotic idea that they belong to the state which idiots like her actually believe.

She is a pathetic excuse for a human being and piece of shit for what she did.

Lol you understand her clarification but then go on to say her original comment, that you misinterpreted, was wrong.

Just give up.

 

[werepossum]

Please define to me exactly what political positions of Andrew Sullivan's you believe are 'progressive'.

Pretty much everything he writes is a thinly veiled attack on conservatism. He supports a flat tax - just not THAT flat tax. He supports Republicans - just not THESE Republicans that are on the ticket. He supports war against Islamic terrorists - just not the way we're fighting it. He supports religion - just not in any public place. He opposes abortion as morally wrong - but supports it being legal. Frankly I don't think he has any honest opinions except for his support of gay marriage.

One can for a time pretend to be a conservative with issues against certain conservative positions or people, but when one purports to be conservative while attacking virtually every conservative proposal and candidate, with exactly the same criticisms as the avowed liberals, it becomes abundantly clear that one is merely making a career of being a useful if dishonest tool for the left. It amuses us that you guys continue pretending that the charade is the reality long past its expiration. "See, Andrew Sullivan is a conservative and he agrees with me" may still be comforting, but it's long since stopped fooling anyone who does not wish to be fooled for their own ulterior motives.

A conservative who always agrees that the liberal is the best candidate and that the liberals are on the correct side of every issue is simply a liberal with a truth issue. I think the left is correct on many issues, but you don't find me pretending to be a leftist because on balance, I am a conservative. I could simply claim to be a liberal with principled objections to some liberals and some liberal policies, but no one can have any valid points if they are attempting to gain credibility by pretending to be on the other side except for this one little issue, over and over and over.

 

[michal1980]

It must be hard work being stupid because you seem to be putting a lot of effort into it. All she is advocating for is for people to understand children affect us all and therefore we should all have an interest in what happens with children whether they are ours or someone else's or whether or not we have kids ourselves or not.

That's not what she was saying.

"So part of it is we have to break through our kind of private idea that kids belong to their parents or kids belong to their families and recognize that kids belong to whole communities."

How complicated is it?

She wants kids to belong to the 'community' and not parents. Typical liberal lefty idea, group ownership.

 

[ivwshane]

That's not what she was saying.

"So part of it is we have to break through our kind of private idea that kids belong to their parents or kids belong to their families and recognize that kids belong to whole communities."

How complicated is it?

She wants kids to belong to the 'community' and not parents. Typical liberal lefty idea, group ownership.

Yeah I'll refer to her own clarification than that of a foaming at the mouth idiot. And apparently it is pretty complicated because you still don't get it while others in this thread at least had the decency to admit they were wrong.

 

[michal1980]

Yeah I'll refer to her own clarification than that of a foaming at the mouth idiot. And apparently it is pretty complicated because you still don't get it while others in this thread at least had the decency to admit they were wrong.

I already explained her clarification.

you are dense.

 

[Balt]

I don't want any level of responsibility for anyone's kids, and I'm not sure why I should be expected to. I think too many parents shirk their own responsibilities and then blame everyone but themselves. They chose to have the kids, not me.

That being said, why did you put quotation marks around her statement and then deliberately change it to make it look worse than it was? If you use quotation marks, copy the quote right. "The community" and "the state" are not the same thing, and you know it.

 

[jackstar7]

Pretty much everything he writes is a thinly veiled attack on conservatism. He supports a flat tax - just not THAT flat tax. He supports Republicans - just not THESE Republicans that are on the ticket. He supports war against Islamic terrorists - just not the way we're fighting it. He supports religion - just not in any public place. He opposes abortion as morally wrong - but supports it being legal. Frankly I don't think he has any honest opinions except for his support of gay marriage.

See, and I think he's just critical of conservative leadership, not conservativism.

And let's be honest, there's plenty to be critical of when it comes to the conservative leadership.

 

[zinfamous]

Do tell. Exactly what needs explaining?

You say that the graph says nothing....except you say that what it says is plainly obvious.

It's funny.